Pentax K-01 Hands-on Preview

The advent of mirrorless has offered camera makers the chance to move beyond the film-era definitions of just how a camera should look. And few have embraced this opportunity to defy convention as enthusiastically as Pentax. For a company that makes admirably no-nonsense DSLRs, its two mirrorless offerings are both interesting expressions of creative design. The Pentax Q is easily the smallest mirrorless camera on the market, with a sensor size to match while, with the K-01, Pentax also claims the crown for the largest mirrorless camera we've yet seen.

While the K-01 may (intentionally) look un-camera-like, its combination of mirrorless design and a sensor inherited from the excellent K-5 means it shouldn't be dismissed. If the K-01 can successfully combine best-in-class image quality with a dedicated live view camera and many of the K-5's photographic features, then it'll really be the worth some attention.

The K-01 is a camera that's likely to polarize opinion at first glance. Its bulky cuboid design is an inevitable consequence of having a full-depth K-mount. Its rather toy-like buttons and switches, however, were voluntary design choices that will put some people off. Aesthetics aside, it's another consequence of using a conventional K-mount that may present the K-01 with its greatest challenge. On the one hand, the K-mount means that the camera can use a vast range of legacy and current Pentax lenses - avoiding the lens drought that early system adopters usually have to endure. On the other hand, the K-01 is a contrast-detect camera in a system designed for phase-detection autofocus, a combination that has rarely resulted in great AF speed.

Also, because the K-01 doesn't have an aperture coupling, it has no way of working out what aperture a pre-1983 (pre-KA) lens is set to. Instead you have to use the green button, which stops down the lens and sets the shutter speed to the metered value for that aperture. This isn't necessary for KA and newer lenses.

With a list price of $749/£629/823 body-only, it's a much cheaper camera than the K-5 and, with its unconventional styling, manual focusing aids and decent video specifications, there may yet be niches for the K-01 to thrive in. And that's before you start considering how many people would like a body on which to use their existing K lenses.

The lens mount on the Pentax K-01 is compatible with all of the company's K-mount lenses, with no adapter needed.

Pentax K-01 specification highlights:

16MP APS-C

6 frame per second shooting

Built-in image stabilization

Lens distortion and chromatic aberration correction

1080p video (30, 25 or 24)

Microphone socket with adjustable volume level

MF focus assist 'peaking'

Built-in HDR

Compared to the Pentax K-5

The K-01 is noticeably smaller in height than the Pentax K-5. The flat surfaces of the K-01 contrast sharply with the traditional DSLR styling of gentle contours and sloped edges.

The K-01 offers fewer rear body controls than the K-5, with a clean vertical alignment extending from the thumb dial to the Menu button. The buttons on the 4-way controller are smaller on the K-01.

This top-down view offers perhaps the clearest design distinction between the two cameras. The K-01's button arrangement reflects a purposeful use of negative space in a layout that appears designed for form, if not necessarily function.

If you're new to digital photography you may wish to read the Digital
Photography Glossary before diving into this article (it may help
you understand some of the terms used).

Conclusion / Recommendation / Ratings are based
on the opinion of the reviewer, you should read the ENTIRE review
before coming to your own conclusions.

Images which can be viewed
at a larger size have a small magnifying glass icon in the bottom
right corner of the image, clicking on the image will display a
larger (typically VGA) image in a new window.

To navigate the review simply
use the next / previous page buttons, to jump to a particular section
either pick the section from the drop down or select it from the
navigation bar at the top.

DPReview calibrate their
monitors using Color Vision OptiCal at the (fairly well accepted)
PC normal gamma 2.2, this means that on our monitors we can make
out the difference between all of the (computer generated) grayscale
blocks below. We recommend to make the most of this review you should
be able to see the difference (at least) between X,Y and Z and ideally
A,B and C.

This article is Copyright 2012 and may NOT in part or in whole be reproduced in any electronic or printed medium without prior permission from the author.

Comments

Th rubber side access door is idiotic, there is no weather resistance which means it will also be susceptible to dust and condensation, and (something I haven't seen mentioned) the On/Off and function dial are easily displaced when taking in/out of some cases, the LCD is a pain in bright light and the auto focus is awful (it is years since I have had a camera that worked that badly) especially in low light. It does however take beautiful pictures. The price had plummeted when I bought mine, so I am not complaining, but I will review any future new Pentax products very carefully before buying.

Pentax has an amazing RAW (and JPEG has a matter of fact) engine on their cameras since the K-x (and switch to sony sensors), but after seeing the level of detail the new 24MP sensors are capable of, I won't be cashing in for anything less (High ISO can bite me, I seldom go anywhere north of ISO 1600...)Regarding the K-01, I think Pentax didn't went far enough (I actually like the looks of it), If the point was making am entire different camera they could've gone for a cube look or something like a cross between a video cam and a Lytro... Not having a swivel screen on a non OVF cam is a deal-breaker, they could've capture a huge following if they just tried to make a more forward thinking video/stills camera, and leaving room on their line up for a conventional K-r successor...

Well I started with Pentax. kx, 20d, k7, k5. The last two stinkers drove me to Canon. I spent 6 months getting the sensor stain, shutter, and never fixed AF. I will never buy another Pentax product as long as I live. Honestly a very poor product by today's standards.

Got the K-5 replaced once and sent in to Pentax 2 times for AF issues. Pentax is just a poor product in these times of excellent cameras being built. Actually I am rather surprised this site doesn't check AF with these cameras correctly before submitting reviews. The Fuji and new Oly look very good for small cameras for me that is. You guys can have Pentax. I am Done!

It seems a lot of other people aren't complaining about theirs, garyknrd. And to conclude that a manufacturer is a "poor product" based on personal account only, to go as far as generalize even with a reputable review site that they're "not doing their job properly" is somewhat moot. I don't believe you're really **that** unlucky with the fixes you want. Maye you're just too conclusive, but well, "you're done" already aren't you?

I had K-5 and returned it, got fuji x pro 1 instead. I know there were some problems wit k-5 but it is the most ergonomic dslr with vast amount of photo features from any camera I owned. Pentax is like really made by photographers for photographers.

I just downloaded the ISO 6400 K-01 JPEG from RAW (imgp1382.acr.jpg) but it looks very different from what we see in the corresponding preview image! What happened, DPreview?Ah - when I scroll around, the preview gets more color noise. Apparently I was seeing a cached image section of a lower ISO. Beware!

Good. An ASP-c sensor camera with AF live view, IBIS, compatible with legacy lenses, a very compact kit lens, good JPEG, nice RAW, multiple video modes, plus something you don't find on anything less than a D5100 from other makers: an intervalometer.

The "baby face" design is ingenious: a quality camera that won't intimidate people or alert security guards into seizure mode. It's as innocuous as a cell phone or a disposable. When people see it, they will be apt smile, which is what you want, and which is not easy with conventional designs that resemble weapons or taurine groins. The controls look friendly too. The full review will be interesting. I'd wager DPR will rate it 75 or better, unless some fluke appears in the menu or functionality.

I wouldn't count on such a high rating. More than likely, DPR will nitpick this camera to death, just as so many other gainsayers have already done. The lack of a VF will loom large. It will be interesting to see what category they place the K-01 in and what cameras they will choose for comparison.

Come to think of it, DPR is probably mildly stunned by these results, and they will have to do some real soul searching when they write their review. Will they be able to get over the unique styling and the lack of a VF in order to judge the camera on performance and IQ?

I feel the same as I did earlier, even after seeing the corrected raw files. The K-01 appears to have the best IQ of any of the 16MP cameras (with the possible exception of the Fuji X-P 1, which has not yet been tested by DPR). If they loved the OM-D, how are they going to not love the K-01? No VF? How about all the fabulous pancake lenses that are available? It will be interesting to see how they frame it.

Either Dpreview forgot to turn off default chroma NR in ACR, or Pentax now officially cooks its RAW files at all ISO's and more than ever, rather than the previous smoothing that kicked in above ISO 1600.If the latter, it seems to have fooled atleast a few people already, into thinking it's producing better RAW files.

You're talking about a Sony camera from many years ago.If cameras were to remove all chroma NR by default, you'd miss out on a lot of red channel detail (which this test scene sadly lacks, see Imaging Resource).

Anyway, the RAW files as posted here show that Dpreview forgot to turn off the default NR in ACR, which they did with all other cameras.

This is about testing consistency. In general, the output from all cameras looks better with chroma NR left to default in ACR/Lightroom, rather than off, which is what Dpreview --> normally<-- uses. Apples and oranges applies here.

It is entirely possible that the K-01's on chip NR is more effective and less destructive that what can be done in PP with NR software. Having done lots of NR with various programs, I must say that I am very impressed by how clean and detailed these samples are. I do not think that I could achieve the same results with ACR, Topaz DeNoise or Dfine.

Yes they are cooked and there is some loss of detail - compare the image of the Greek God to the Sony NEX-5N or the E-M5 at ISO6400 and you will see more detail in those. Samsung do a sililar thing and the same happened with the original Nikon 1 studio comparison.

If I ask for RAW, I want real RAW so I can reduce the chroma noise myself.

Still, the camera is not compact for a mirrorless design which , for me, is the whole point of MILC, EVIL, CSC etc.

Yup, it is. Considerably better than the 5N at 12800 - MUCH less chroma noise and only slightly (in no way as bad as with, say, earlier Oly cameras at 6400+, where, practically, they've become b/w) less saturation. With the same detail level.

It seems obvious to me, especially after seeing DPR's studio test shots with the K-01, that the full review of this camera will be widely anticipated. Say what you will about it -- I like my K-01 a lot -- Pentax continues to be highly capable of interesting concepts in cameras.

Perhaps its because JPEGs are the result of a myriad of unknown (to the user) factors that comprise the camera's processing algorithm. I don't shoot in JPEG mode and could not care less about them. OTOH, these raw samples are very impressive--definitely a step above the K-5, assuming that DPR used the same lens and focused accurately for both tests.

No, most people would think the camera was a ploy to hide your age, and that you also used Botox, a toupe, and hair dye. One must credit Pentax for offering a design that might appeal to clients younger than old-school codgers, but the camera does look a bit like an Austin Powers "mod" prop.

The K 01 arrived and it is no toy. It is solid and quite advanced. Reviewers pan it for no VF. That is not a problem. The issue would be the other similar cameras that do not have focus peaking or IBIS. Those are the necessary features.

It is an easy transition for those coming from P&S cameras but it is incredibly advanced as well. This can give a FF camera more than a run for its money.

I owned a K-r for a short period of time before I sold it for this and I don't have buyer's remorse for doing it.

Things I like:-The thing isn't plastic. And it doesn't feel it.-The picture quality in RAW...-The controls are simple.-Because it is designed for a screen, live view can be used all the time and not drain the battery quickly like it did on the K-r. That is of course if you like the live view.-When you put on the kit lens this camera takes up the same space as a 4/3rds. Most times you carry a camera around and want to take quick shots you don't need a zoom anyways. It is a slightly genius maneuver to make the lens smaller as that is what half the size of the 4/3rds cameras are, the lens.

More Detail :http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00740MR78/tipfla-20

You are the target audience. You are a point and shooter who found that DSLRs were too complicated but wanted to use the same lenses, I suppose. You say

"Most times you carry a camera around and want to take quick shots you don't need a zoom anyways."

And this is totally off the mark mostly for all but point and shoot mentality. Snap snap on vacations and such. That is not what most serious photographers do. The don't just wear the camera for quick shots. Where's the part about pre-visualizing your image and making careful compositions?

I just think the whole camera is a little expensive for that group of people who might consider a camera with no viewfinder. You see all the time people asking for compacts with a viewfinder and lamenting they about don't exist. You never see someone looking for a better camera, but asking for no viewfinder. I can see zero advantage for not including one other than price, and at $899 that's not the reason. ;)

Yeah... and for all that money Pentax doesn't even include a "Protentious Photog-Guy" club card!! Now how will I go around telling others they can't make any good photos with their new-fangeled "camera." I recomend everyone go look at Canon or Nikon instead.

Guidenet needs to try one before making snap judgements. It can be set up for the typical P&S user. It also offers extensive options such as customizing the controls to fit one's preferences. On mine, the red is for focus peaking and the green is for exposure taking on old manual lenses.

The focus peaking gives one incredible control over focus location. IBIS and incredible High ISO abilities make it capable in a wider range of lighting than most cameras. Tone quality, image quality and video quality can all go against the best.

For event, street, and creative shooting, I would be hard pressed to pick a better camera.

Last year at this time when I was FINALLY ready to "bite the bullet" and go DSLR (after 8 years of buying nothing but the best P&S cameras -- 4 successive megazooms, first two Lumix, then to Canon -- ALL of which had viewfinders, offered RAW mode, AND the last two of which worked with Canon's pro-level flashes -- I seriously considered going Canon, since I already had a 430 EXII flash).

What changed my mind was discovering my 90s-era Pentax 135mm F2.8 lens would work with the K-5. I agree the K-01 looks like an over-priced toy, and I wouldn't buy one. But not only will NONE of the older Canon nor Nikon lenses work with their stabilization systems (since it's built into the lens, instead of the camera), With Canon, if you go from APS-C to full frame(Nikon, too?), you have to buy ALL NEW LENSES again!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I like the chunky modern design, and I give Pentax credit for allowing an industrial designer to create a new camera from scratch. Over time, I think that many people will get over their initial horror at seeing a camera that doesn't look like any other.

This is a designer item. It is like modern art, the actual object is not as important as the long pretentious description that goes with it. You are just so 19th century when everything stood on its own merits.

what is this talk about weight? it is a lot lighter than the K-5. I worry a little about the lack of VF, not so easy to focus on (with my eyes).And if the focusing system is sufficiently good in low light.

I think it would fit nicely in my somewhat smal hands and I love my old lenses.

This is a highly competitive & with high expectations for camera features, quality, design, etc. The design engineers have done a great job in putting Pentax in a glorious quality spot. In the real world, choices are aplenty and they are bound to be acceptable to many categories of users. Bearing this in mind, it is sad to say that this K-01 design if placed side by side with the others, it will be overlooked as a piece of cheapskate. Miniaturization, high perceived value with quality is the way forward. It is simply not appealing because it does not look serious and it is thick and bulky obviously by comparison difference with the others. I know the quality is highly acceptable as being tested by DxOMark but I am sure not buying it. I am really curious to know at the end of the day, the number of K-01 units can be sold worldwide.

I am neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, or micro 4/3 users. I use/like a camera as long as it is good in features and practical. Honestly speaking, I do not quite understand the philosophy behind the Pentax design engineers. Not getting into full frame market before jumping into very expensive medium format 645, interchangeable lens system with tiny p&s sensor (Q), now a bulky mirrorless camera. and who knows the next in the future. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the main purpose getting rid of mirror is to achieve portability of a interchangeable lens camera system. What does K-01 try to accomplish in this regard? If just for using the existing line of lenses, I would rather stick with K-5 or any other Pentax APSC for their professional looks, not this as bulky and toy-looking "SLR".

It is interesting that you think the main reason for mirrorless camera is not reduction of size and weight. I wonder what benefits will that be. It already sacrifices the optical viewfinder and faster AF (contrast detect instead of phase detect) featured in the regular DSLR. If not for reduction in size and weights, again, what other advantages does a mirrorless camera offer. Please advise. Maybe I could learn something here.

You're obviously free to disagree with the path that Pentax has chosen, but if you look at what they say when they talk about their strategy, they clearly state that they have no interest in being a "me too" camera company. They have said many times that they are considering a full frame camera, but that they will only make it if they can do it in a way that is different than what the others are doing. I personally think FF will happen and I expect that it will probably be equally polarizing. The Q, like it or not, is different than anything else (especially at release.) And I think the K-01 has followed in that same pattern. I do admit that this way of designing is not going to appeal to everyone or probably ever make them a top seller. But Pentax is at least doing exactly what they told everyone they would do.

I also think you (CJ Lan) and others have rightly made up your mind at this point and that no matter what anyone says, you will not be swayed. And I think that's great because you know what you want and this isn't it. I will offer my point of view: People complained that the Q had a small sensor and that you couldn't natively mount K lenses. The K-01 offers the flip side to the Q. It is not as small as some mirrorless cameras, but Pentax, by using the K-mount, was somewhat restricted in size (ie registration distance.) The K-01 is 1/2 an inch wider than the mount to the right and 2 1/4 inches to the left which makes it smaller than the K-5 (already a small DSLR) in height and width. In my opinion as an owner, it does "feel" more portable.

Pentaxians are also used to being able to put any lens on their K-mount cameras which means everything from the new 40mm XS lens (slightly thicker than a body mount cap) to zoom lenses made in the 80's and 90's that are huge. The bigger the lens, the more the thickness of the K-01 is appreciated. As Pentax releases more XS lenses (which will be smaller and made specifically for the K-01) I would expect to see a quick and smaller version of the kit lenses, which will make use of short focus throw and be optimized for the contrast detect focusing.

CJ Lan, it might be interesting to note that people seem to disagree with you, but failed to even attempt to answer your question properly. The reason might be there is no answer. I agree with you in that the primary advantage for a mirrorless design is so that you can make the whole thing smaller by shortening the registration distance usually taken up by the mirror box. The camera makes little sense to me.

Another thing is the lack of a viewfinder. I can't imagine serious photographers considering a model with no viewfinder or really a way to add one. Even a lot of point and shooters complain that compacts no longer have even a rudimentary viewfinder. I'm just not sure who Pentax is marketing this to. I would imagine it might be to someone who bought a Pentax DSLR, found it too complicated but wanted to preserve their lens collection. Seems to me to be a narrow audience.

I absolutely agree with washcoll, especially on the part of interchangeable lens. I still have a K200d with M42 lens.

Yes, Pentax has always been bold. That's what they are known for, but it's a hit or miss idea.

Take the K200d for example, and ask yourself this question: who did it appeal to? Enthusiast? Amateurs? Pros? It does not have a FF sensor and no live view; it only has a top continuous burst rate of 2.8fps.But, you still won't find a cheaper weather sealed small DSLR with an amazing ASPC sensor. And it's been over 4 years!!

This gem was discontinued because only a few consumers bought the idea of a cheap DSLR that was rugged and reliable, and Pentax struggled to make a profit.

Like it or not, this is what Pentax is known for, they think outside the box. With so much competition around the corner, the K-01 is a miss for me, though.

Mirrorless design has many advantages AND disadvantages. Possibility to reduce lens to sensor distance (hence smaller body design) is but one possible advantage. Amongst other, more accurate AF not dependent on the lens used, lens design can include protrusion further into body allowing for better wide angle lens design (which otherwise have to use a reverse tele design), no mirror slap = sharper images, less mechanics = more reliability, no need for expensive optical VF = reduced costs are all good reasons to remove the mirror.

Interesting to read when you say that you are neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, etc. but anyway it seems to me you’re not satisfied with any camera that doesn’t have the DSLR Canon or Nikon look. If you know something about industrial design, you should know that you have to offer something to get something. Therefore it’s important to note:

1 The K-01 is a mirrorles camera2 The K-01 weights approximately 200 gr. less than the already small K-53 The body thickness with kit lens DA 40mm XS is around 64 mm. 37mm less than NEX cameras with kit zoom lens.4 Instead of buying a whole new array of new lenses you can stick with your excellent K mount lenses. Now perhaps you will understand the philosophy of Pentax better.

"...battery won't last that long anyway..."I don't think so.I've made some T-l with my K5, and, i can make a 999 images sequence with less than half power of a battery.You just have to disable the LCD screen and the AF.

Bear in mind DxOmark only tests sensors and lenses. Image quality is more than sensor performance. The trouble with this camera is that, despite its potential for high image quality, many prospective purchasers will be put off by price, awkwardness and aesthetics. (Not necessarily in that order.) As for me, I wouldn't like to be seen holding this camera in public...

To all those persistent comments about the lack of viewfinder I can respond that since this an ILC, an OVF is generally problematic (but still available from a 3-party maker). An EVF, on the other hand, would have made the camera much more expensive and directly competitive to other Pentax DSLRs. I think Pentax might have a good point in intentionally omitting a viewfinder on K-01.

Also, as far as the 'boxy' design, I can comment that if this was a fancy Leica not many people would have had complained...

So what purpose do mirrorless cameras have that makes a viewfinder redundant? Sony NEX-7, Olympus E-M5, Panasonic G3/GH2, Samsung NX10/11, Nikon V1, Fuji X100/X-Pro1, these mirrorless cameras all have viewfinders, and yet they are all less bulky than the K-01. Of course, not all people need or want a viewfinder, but that's why there are also mirrorless cameras without one.The main purpose of any camera is to take pictures, and if one thinks that a viewfinder makes this easier, then what's wrong with that?

First of all, there are plenty of mirrorless cameras with built-in EVF's. Secondly, of the mirrorless cameras that don't have built-in EVF's, they at least offer the option of an add-on/removeable EVF. For example, I use an Olympus Pen m4/3 camera, and I also have the Olympus VF-3 add-on viewfinder, which I can choose to use or choose not to use, based on the conditions. (I *greatly* prefer to use the VF3 for any outdoor shooting).

The Pentax offers neither of these options- neither a built-in EVF nor the option of an add-on EVF. This is going to turn off a lot of potential buyers.

What's also bizarre is that a viewfinder greatly improves the handling of a camera when you are using larger lenses. Since the K-01 can use all Pentax K system lenses, including some that are rather large, being able to support the camera against your face is a huge advantage. Besides, even with smaller lenses, being able to put the camera to your face is still quite comfortable for a lot of folks.

After two weeks of using it, I am really enjoying this camera. It is easy to see how its design can be polarizing, but in real world use I have found it to fill a need (something more portable than my K-5.) It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the K-5 but it does have some of it's own pluses. The think the boxy look makes it appear more cumbersome than it is in real life. The images and ISO performance are great and I can use all of my lenses (and with focus peaking, some of them even easier than on the K-5... I'm looking at you 50mm f1.2.) At the end of the day, I care more about the images I get than the look of the camera.

Would this replace my K-5? No. But I don't believe that is the intention. Though I haven't really had much issues with it not having a VF, I know that's a problem for some. Of course, I've been using point and shoot cameras in the sun for many years without issue and it really hasn't been any more difficult on this camera.

Pentax I simply do not get your design philosophy. First the Q mad no sense. Than this project would have had some potential but you forgot the viewfinder?!?!?!? Maybe talk to some photographers next time.

Not necessarily. I don't like the K01 but videographers may take to it. Also, the K5 replacement will probably use the new 24MP Sony Exmor found in the Nex 7 (likely the Nikon D400, too). Given how capable Pentax was extracting all the goodness out of the 16MP Sony, I have high expectations.There is also that nice 560M lens in their roadmap.

If it had a leica badge,it would sell. It's design is as rediculous as the M9. Without.....? The should have followed the Fuji/Olympus retro theme. (Although I think the K5 design is itself a future classic). Plenty examples in the Pentax catalogue.

Was this camera designed by a bunch of people in an insane asylum? It looks ridiculous and the large size serves no purpose - look at all the wasted space. I'm sorry, you can't just make things and wacky colors and expect it to be a smashing success. Do they really think people are that stupid? Pentax is really in danger of completely going under....wow.

I see some positive points for this "designer's" camera: 1. If you buy it in yellow, thieves may believe it is one of those disposable Kodak-like cameras.2. If you buy it in pink, thieves may believe it is a Barbie's camera.3. If you buy it in green, you can match to the color of your hair and add to a nice punk-like look. You can buy green trousers and shoes as well.Imagine yourself beside some folks by the race track with their huge SLRs and you with your yellow K1 and a 300mm f4 Pentax teleprime...well, you will miss all the shots because the AF is horrid, but you will be in the center of all discussions.That is what this camera is about: it is not for you gearheads who come here to discuss if the custom button is in the right place or not. It is for people who paint their hair green.

If the body were slimmer flange would have to be shorter, which would imply a smaller bayonet, an adapter to mount K- lenses and manufacturing new lenses for this camera. It would negate the only clever feature of this camera - the possibility of using any K-mount lens.

Honestley, for the size / weight gain, they should have put a better grip on that thing and EVF. At least battery life is better than most if not all mirrorless cameras. Hope they get the next gen right